Why Everyone Else is Wrong

Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, August 31, 2012

Closed ears
How human morality really works.

Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion, Pantheon Books, 419 pp., $27.95.

This book begins with a quotation from Spinoza—“I have striven not to laugh at human actions, not weep at them, not to hate them, but to understand them”—and the author does his best to do likewise. Jonathan Haidt, who teaches at New York University after many years at the University of Virginia, has tried to figure out how morality really works, not how it should work. To that end, he leads the reader on a fascinating tour of the roles of reason and emotion, the purpose of religion, why groups are important, how liberals differ from conservatives, and why well-meaning people so often disagree.

Prof. Haidt had to suppress his instinctive liberalism in order to follow where the evidence leads, and did so with considerable bravery: How many social scientists would argue that religion is important and that we build atheist societies at our peril? Or that liberalism is based on a dangerously narrow moral foundation? This book is like another one recently reviewed here, Pathological Altruism, in that it does not directly address the race question, but some of the light it sheds shines our way.

A critique of pure reason

One of Prof. Haidt’s most interesting arguments is about the nature of moral reasoning:

If you think moral reasoning is something we do to figure out the truth, you’ll be constantly frustrated by how foolish, biased, and illogical people become when they disagree with you. But if you think about moral reasoning as a skill we humans evolved to further our social agendas—to justify our own actions and to defend the teams we belong to—then things will make a lot more sense. Keep your eye on the intuitions and don’t take people’s moral arguments at face value. They’re mostly post hoc constructions made up on the fly, crafted to advance one or more strategic objectives.

Often, the mental exercises we think are truth-seeking are really excuse-making.

Ever since Plato, Western thinkers have argued that reason can dominate the emotions and lead to virtue. Almost all the greatest mischief makers—Karl Marx, Franz Boas, Margaret Meade, Gunnar Myrdal, Jonathan Kozol, Steven Jay Gould, and virtually every social science department in America—have gone farther and claimed there is no such thing as human nature, so we can reason our way to utopia. As Prof. Haidt notes, radical reformers have to believe the mind is a blank slate if they are to write their fantasies on it.

Science now recognizes that the mind is far from blank. We are strongly motivated by fear, disgust, anger, affection, sympathy, and loyalty in ways that have been sharply defined by evolution. Reason is a newcomer:

Animal brains are constantly appraising the environment and making instant decisions about how to get more of the good things out there and less of the bad. Automatic processes run the human mind, just as they have been running animal minds for 500 million years, so they’re very good at what they do . . . . When human beings evolved the capacity for language and reasoning at some point in the last million years, the brain did not rewire itself to hand over the reins to a new and inexperienced charioteer.

Prof. Haidt develops this idea further with an analogy of an elephant and its rider—“thinking is the rider, affect is the elephant”—but the rider serves the elephant and only occasionally tells it where to go. The rider has the ability to consider options and think about the future so he is useful to the elephant, but the elephant—like other animals—mostly runs on instinct. The rider is also “skilled at fabricating post hoc explanations for whatever the elephant has just done, and it is good at finding reasons to justify whatever the elephant wants to do next.”

The emotional processing that drives the elephant is intuitive. For example, people draw conclusions about the attractiveness and competence of someone after seeing his picture for a tenth of a second. Our instincts are immediate—the elephant begins to lean one way or the other—and the rider cobbles together moral justifications only afterwards.

One of the most important functions of the rider is to make the elephant look good: “Once human beings developed language and began to use it to gossip about each other, it became extremely valuable for elephants to carry around on their backs a full-time public relations firm.” The social aspect of moral reasoning is crucial. If we were solitary animals, we would not need moral reasoning; simply wanting to do something would be reason enough for doing it. The real purpose of morality is to justify our own actions to others and to set up rules to compel them to act as we say they should. Moral reasoning is not a means to objective truth but is, as Prof. Haidt explains, “part of our lifelong struggle to win friends and influence people.”

Prof. Haidt says that the conscious mind is a spin artist: “We are indeed selfish hypocrites, so skilled at putting on a show of virtue that we fool even ourselves.” Being (or just appearing to be) right is a major human goal: “An obsession with righteousness (leading inevitably to self-righteousness) is the normal human condition.” We care more about our reputations and having our own way than we do about the facts: “Our moral thinking is much more like a politician searching for votes than a scientist searching for truth.”

What Prof. Haidt is saying nicely sums up people with whom we disagree, doesn’t it? But surely, it doesn’t apply to us or our friends! There may be a handful of people who can judge their own motives perfectly, whose opinions are never swayed by personal interests, who unhesitatingly tell the truth even if damages them. Chances are, we are not among them.

It is because of our partisan minds that we read books we expect to agree with. That is why we spend more time with people like ourselves than with people with different politics. Once we have taken a position it becomes very difficult to change. We become full-time lawyers, looking for the evidence that supports us and ignoring the rest.

Our minds are not impartial.

Prof. Haidt writes that whenever people have the slightest interest in an outcome, they can be counted on to “reason” it out to their own advantage—and to believe they have been perfectly objective. He says you get truth only when “a large number of flawed and limited minds battle it out.”

This is why people are so good at finding holes in other people’s arguments but cannot see the flaws in their own. Brain scan studies find that when we are presented with evidence that contradicts something we strongly believe, we do not activate the parts of the brain involved in calm reasoning. Instead, emotion-related areas light up—the parts of the brain involved in negative emotions and responses to punishment. The brain comforts itself by activating reward circuitry. As Prof. Haidt explains:

[P]artisans may be simply unable to stop believing weird things. The partisan brain has been reinforced so many times for performing mental contortions that free it from unwanted beliefs. Extreme partisanship may be literally addictive.

This is why arguments are so unproductive. Moral reasoning is like a dog’s tail: “You can’t make a dog happy by forcibly wagging its tail. And you can’t change people’s minds by utterly refuting their arguments.” If your arguments ever convince anyone, it is only after you have taken the trouble fully to understand what he feels and thinks: “It’s such an obvious point, yet few of us apply it in moral and political arguments because our righteous minds so readily shift into combat mode.”

Most of the time, says Prof. Haidt, “if you want to change people’s minds, you’ve got to talk to their elephants,” and you don’t do that with reason. You do it by showing yourself to be a warm, attractive person. When you draw someone in emotionally, his elephant begins to lean your way, and the rider starts paying attention to what you say. This is how many people become dissidents on race. Someone they like or respect turns out to be a dissident, and they open their minds to his ideas.

Very occasionally someone reasons through a question and arrives at a conclusion against his initial intuitions, but this is rare. Prof. Haidt notes that art can also change minds: “Intuitions can be shaped by reasoning, especially when reasons are embedded in a friendly conversation or an emotionally compelling novel, movie, or news story.”

The foundations of morality

But what makes elephants go their different ways? Why do moralities differ? Prof. Haidt argues that we have an instinct for rules and rule-making, but environment points us in specific directions: “We’re born to be righteous, but we have to learn what, exactly, people like us should be righteous about.”

Some societies are more group-oriented than others. When you ask people to write 20 sentences that begin with “I am . . . ,” Westerners write about their inner states: “I am conscientious,” “interested in jazz,” etc. Asians are more likely to write that they are a father, a member of the soccer team, or an employee of Hitachi.

Morality in the contemporary West—at least among educated people—tends to be centered on individuals: Anything that does not hurt someone else is OK. Everything else, whether it is what side of the plate the fork goes on or how married women should dress, is arbitrary convention. Prof. Haidt points out that in many non-Western societies, what we would call conventions are strong taboos, invested with heavy moral meaning. In those societies, it is wrong to break taboos, even if breaking them hurts no one.

WEIRD morality is centered on the individual and his “rights.”

People who think of humans as autonomous atoms, and who believe morality can be reduced to the rule of avoiding harm are what Prof. Haidt calls WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic). Other people have moral codes that are not based on universal rules but on duties and virtues. Groups, relationships, institutions, and traditions are more important than individuals, and anything that gives priority to the individual is dangerous. Prof. Haidt has found that you do not have to leave the West to find this kind of morality; less educated Westerners are more likely to think that certain things—homosexuality, incest, blasphemy, drug-taking, miscegenation, and prostitution, for example—are inherently bad whether they hurt anyone or not.

WEIRD people think they are above taboos, but they deceive themselves. Prof. Haidt came up with imaginary scenarios and asked American college students whether they are wrong—and why. In one story, the family dog is run over by a car and killed. The family takes the carcass home, cooks it, and eats it. The students had a strong sense that that is bad, but they didn’t like to think they were reacting to mere taboo. They tried to invent victims to justify their revulsion: The children could get sick from eating dog meat, for example.

In another scenario, a woman finds an old American flag in her house, cuts it into rags, and cleans her toilet with it. Even WEIRD people don’t like the idea of this, but they refuse to think it is intrinsically bad. Prof. Haidt’s college-student subjects wanted victims, so they were likely to say that someone might see the soiled flag and be offended, or that the woman herself would feel guilty later. Prof. Haidt writes that this groping for victims shows that “moral reasoning was often the servant of moral emotions.”

Prof. Haidt and others have looked for what appear to be the different emotional areas on which morality is based. He calls these “foundations,” and has found five (see the graph below). “Care” is the emotion that the helpless evoke; children, for example, must be looked after. “Fairness” requires that people not be cheated or exploited, and “Loyalty” recognizes that certain groups deserve allegiance. “Authority” is the sense that groups need rules and leaders that should be respected. “Sanctity” is the intuition that some things, such as God, flag, or chastity, are intrinsically sacred. What is most interesting about these foundations is how easily they distinguish liberals from conservatives.

The graph above, which runs from “very liberal” to “very conservative,” shows how important the different foundations are to different kinds of people. Liberals are obsessed with fairness and caring, in the sense of looking after the weak, defective, and victims of oppression. They don’t care much about loyalty, authority, and sanctity. Conservatives, on the other hand, base their morality on all five foundations.

Prof. Haidt recognizes that liberals are fetishistic about “oppression:”

If you grow up in a WEIRD society, you . . . can detect oppression and inequality even where the apparent victims see nothing wrong. . . . For American liberals since the 1960s, I believe that the most sacred value is caring for victims of oppression. Anyone who blames such victims for their own problems or who displays or merely excuses prejudice against socialized victim groups can expect a vehement tribal response.

Prof. Haidt also notes that conservatives and liberals interpret “fairness” differently: “On the left, fairness implies equality, but on the right it means proportionality—people should be rewarded in proportion to what they contribute, even if that guarantees unequal outcomes.” Liberals worry that homosexuals can’t marry; conservatives resent welfare cheats.

For many liberals, equal opportunity is not enough; they want equal results. That is not possible in a capitalist society, so a deep hankering for equality is inherently socialist. This is why rural and working-class whites vote Republican. Liberals think Republicans have somehow duped blue-collar whites into voting against their own interests, but people who get their hands dirty for a living are offended by the liberal assault on merit, and they hate freeloaders.

Prof. Haidt and his colleagues have set up a website, YourMorals.org, where they get people to fill in questionnaires about their moral foundations, and have discovered something else: Conservatives understand the morals of liberals, but liberals do not understand those of conservatives. When conservatives are asked to answer questionnaires as if they were liberals, they generally get the motives right. When liberals pretend to be conservatives, they attribute incorrect, evil motives. This is not surprising; liberals think conservatives are not just wrong; they are moral inferiors.

Prof. Haidt and other researchers have found other differences. Liberals are reported to be more open to new things—people, food, music, etc.—while conservatives prefer the tried and true. Liberal professors give a narrower range of grades whereas conservative professors accept inequality, and give high grades to good students and flunk the worst. Liberals want dogs that are gentle and caring while conservatives want dogs that are loyal and obedient.

How conservatives want their dogs.

Prof. Haidt points out something else: the liberal foundations of morality put the individual before the group. Conservatives care about individuals, too, but they also value the authority, loyalty, and sense of sanctity that groups require. Despite Prof. Haidt’s instinctive liberalism, years of research have led him to see the importance of these group-oriented moral foundations. He certainly risks becoming anathema in his own circles by asking, “Might conservatives have a better formula for how to create a healthy, happy society?”

Prof. Haidt is also aware of studies that have found that conservatism and liberalism are heritable: About half the variation in this trait is heritable in men and somewhat less in women.

The importance of groups

Conservatives have a broader set of moral foundation because they recognize that humans are not atoms. For many people, their greatest satisfactions come from losing their identity and cooperating full tilt with the team, platoon, congregation, or cast of a musical. Altruism, devotion, and heroism cannot even exist in the absence of groups.

Prof. Haidt believes that group-level selection has had an undeserved bad name for the last several decades, and that humans really did evolve in ways that selected for tribal altruism. Groups in which members were willing to sacrifice outcompeted other groups. Prof. Haidt therefore argues that we have evolved both to be selfish and deceitful—which we are most of the time—but that under the right circumstances we can devote ourselves wholeheartedly to others, and that this is what makes us so different from all other mammals.

It is the ability to communicate and share intentions that makes us unique. Although chimps are our closest relatives, they are incapable of even the simplest kinds of cooperation. One chimp never holds down a springy branch while another picks off the fruit. Once we became able to cooperate—and Prof. Haidt thinks that happened 600 to 700 thousand years ago—it became much easier to get food, rear children, and raid other tribes.

As cooperation became the norm, rules had to be laid down, and rule-breakers had to be punished. The most basic rule is loyalty, and that is why people hate traitors more than they hate avowed enemies. Men are more tribal and group-oriented than women, who tend to be more loyal to two-person groups.

Prof. Haidt notes that the key to making any group work better is to “increase similarity, not diversity,” because people trust people who are like themselves. He says Orthodox Jews can run diamond markets efficiently and without elaborate security because they trust each other—because they are so similar. He adds that for any group, singing songs and marching together makes people feel more similar and this increases trust. He then says the one genuinely stupid (or perhaps just cravenly tactical) thing in the whole book: “There is nothing special about race. You can make people care less about race by drowning race differences in a sea of similarities, shared goals, and mutual interdependence.” The Army claims to do this, but this is a transparently false claim.

North Korean soldiers building group cohesion and trust.

All societies have to balance the interests of the group and the individual, and WEIRD people put the individual first. This is very recent and far from universal—Prof. Haidt wonders if it may not be a reaction to the excesses of communism and fascism—and he realizes that it is risky to break down groups. When people really are unconnected individuals, cooperation fades.

Groups necessarily exclude outsiders, and it is the rare American academic who is willing to write kindly about any exclusive undertaking. Prof. Haidt concedes that groups can hurt each other—sometimes they exterminate each other—but argues that they do more good than harm: “[I]ntergroup competition increases love of the in-group far more than it increases dislike of the out-group.”

Prof. Haidt realizes that an essential group dynamic is the conviction that members of other groups are not quite right—wrong, misguided, or somehow defective—but insists that “we need groups, we love groups, and we develop our virtues in groups.” Then, whether he knows it or not, he says something dangerous: “Might the world be a better place if we could greatly increase the care people get within their existing groups and nations while slightly decreasing the care they get from strangers in other groups and nations?”

This is obviously true. If American blacks would marry each other instead of mugging and killing each other, it would do infinitely more good than handouts from white people. If Haitians could work together they would not need foreign aid. Unfortunately, stating the obvious is called “blaming the victim” (and may also be asking the impossible), and it is the very opposite of the current orthodoxy that requires rich white people at least to pretend to care deeply about distant people who are utterly unlike themselves.

Religion

Prof. Haidt makes another bold foray into heterodoxy in recognizing the importance of religion in holding societies together. He thinks religion arose as a mechanism to set the rules for a smooth-running moral community and to bind people to its values. If people believe in omniscient gods they are less likely to cheat when no one is looking, and a common set of rules creates trust—what psychologists call “social capital.” This is the key to getting large numbers of people to cooperate with others who are not immediate kin. Prof. Haidt quotes David Wilson, a biologist at Binghamton University: “Religions exist primarily for people to achieve together what they cannot achieve on their own.”

The recent evolution of our species took place within a thick matrix of morality, much of it religious. We worked, lived, traded, and mated in accordance with this moral matrix, even though we had to sacrifice “personal growth,” and other such self-centered fads. Rituals and sacred practices encourage people to sacrifice and to feel they are in the presence of something profound.

Prof. Haidt notes that many utopian communes were started in the 19th century, but it was the ones run on explicitly religious lines that survived best. Communes with religions that demanded the most sacrifice lasted longest. When sacrifice did not have a religious justification, commune members wanted to know what was in it for them.

Today, the Amish sacrifice many of the conveniences of modern society.

Prof. Haidt reports that religious people give more to charity than non-religious people, although much of their giving goes to the religious group. By “religious,” however, he does not mean depth of conviction but depth of commitment, how enmeshed people are in their congregations. It is belonging, more than believing, that builds up social capital. People who are religious in this way also do more volunteer work, are better neighbors and citizens, and contribute proportionately more to non-religious charities, such as medical research foundations. “Religion in the United States,” writes Prof. Haidt, “nowadays generates such vast surpluses of social capital that much of it spills over and benefits outsiders.”

This is a remarkable statement for an academic. On most campuses, serious Christians are just one step up from “racists” (Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims are exempt because they are usually not white), but Prof. Haidt does not to hesitate to draw the logical conclusion. Now, for the first time in history, we have societies that are, for all practical purposes, atheist. Prof. Haidt warns that “they are the least efficient societies ever known at turning resources (of which they have a lot) into offspring (of which they have few).”

Prof. Haidt writes that the left makes a great mistake in overlooking the importance of religion and of other group-derived sources of loyalty and morality:

Moral communities are fragile things, hard to build and easy to destroy. When we think about very large communities such as nations, the challenge is extraordinary and the threat of moral entropy is intense.

Prof. Haidt does not fail to note that the threat of moral entropy is especially intense in diverse societies. He goes on to issue a few valuable warnings to the left:

“If you destroy all groups and dissolve all internal structure, you destroy your moral capital.” If “you do not consider the effects of your changes on moral capital you’re asking for trouble. This, I believe is the fundamental blind spot of the left. It explains why liberal reforms so often backfire . . . .” “Loyalty, Authority, Sanctity,” the moral foundations the left ignores, “have a crucial role to play in a good society.”

The left has learned nothing from the grisly failure of communism, and continues to destroy moral capital by pushing “diversity,” feminism, atheism, equal outcomes, hedonism, and homosexuality, not only in the West but in societies that are still attached to tradition.

Ultimately, argues Prof. Haidt, moral systems are anything that helps people trust each other and work together. These systems are valuable even if they make no sense to outsiders. They are not rules about “justice” or “rights;” they may not be sets of rules at all. They are relationships, practices, traditions, expectations, and rituals that have grown up over time and in which people find the place that suits them. They are not mere social conventions that can be swept aside like old rubbish. Individuals do not have the capacity, all by themselves, to puzzle out consistent patterns of good behavior.

Nor does the same moral matrix work everywhere. “Beware of anyone,” writes Prof. Haidt, “who insists that there is one true morality for all people, times, and places.” That, of course, is precisely the kind of system we are left with in a “multi-cultural,” “diverse” society that is determined to overthrow every ancient or particularist norm.

What this means for us

Prof. Haidt writes that it is only people in WEIRD societies (Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic) who have rule-based moralities and who value individuals over groups. They are also the only people who have devalued the racial or national group to the point where they talk cheerfully about dispossession. No one else spouts nonsense about the wonders of diversity.

But not all Western people have been denatured. Less-educated and poorer whites, and those living in Eastern Europe are less likely to have a WEIRD morality and less likely to have lost racial or ethnic consciousness. There is probably a strong relationship between living in a rich, industrialized country, and putting the individual over the group, since there has to be a lot of wealth for each nuclear family and for many single adults to have their own homes. Voting rather than clan-based power struggles also devalues the group. Significantly, though, these things have not destroyed group consciousness in rich Eastern countries such as Japan and Korea. It may be that anything that increases an awareness of the importance of groups increase awareness of the importance of race.

Voting promotes individual-based morality.

Prof. Haidt wrote this book in part to understand why well-meaning people cannot agree, and why they disagree so vehemently. He concludes that self-righteousness and the denigration of others is part of the way morality works, but that if we understand this it may make it easier for us to tolerate disagreement. He argues that both liberals and conservatives (would he stretch that to include “racists”?) are convinced they are trying to do the right thing, but their very conviction prevents them from recognizing their opponents’ good will.

This is surely true. Racially conscious whites are exquisitely aware of how liberals misattribute our motives and distort our positions. And yet, if they listen carefully to how their comrades or conventional conservatives talk about liberals, they will hear similar distortions.

A great many people are misguided, but very, very few are evil. By their lights, they are doing what is right. In our fight for survival, I’m not sure what good it does to realize that those who are even unintentionally destroying us are convinced they have worthy motives, but it is so. “We often have the urge to attribute ulterior motives to our opponents,” notes Prof. Haidt. “This is usually an error.” It would be useful if this book made liberals stop and consider how recklessly they attribute malevolence to their opponents.

Prof. Haidt is also unquestionably right when he says that moral arguments rarely change people’s minds. The whole purpose of American Renaissance is to make moral arguments and to present the facts on which these arguments are based. To us, what we say is factually irrefutable and profoundly moral, but liberals are deaf to our arguments and blind to our facts. That is the way the moral mind works.

But to the extent arguments do work, they have to reach what Prof. Haidt calls the elephant, the emotions. That is why racially conscious whites must avoid the slightest hint of anger or mean-spiritedness. This is almost impossible when you are fighting for your life, but even people who are leaning our way and who need only a gentle push towards racial consciousness will be pushed the other way by bitterness, sarcasm, or rudeness. That may amuse the comrades, but our purpose is not to amuse the comrades. It is to reach enough whites to build the movement that will be required if we are to survive.

As Prof. Haidt notes, many liberals have a queer notion of “fairness” that requires not just equal opportunity but equal outcomes. My guess is that to the extent our arguments make any sense to them at all, they must be based on something not too far removed from equal outcomes: Is it right for whites to be reduced to a minority while everyone else’s numbers grow? Is it right for whites to give up their homelands while other groups retain theirs? Is it right to require whites to sacrifice their interests—to deny they even have interests—while other groups promote theirs? At some muted, barely conscious level, appeals to reciprocity may get through to liberals.

Our task is particularly difficult because conventional thinking is now entrenched against us. Prof. Haidt writes that “the most effective way to design an ethical society is to make it so that everyone’s reputation is always on the line, so that bad behavior will have bad consequences.” This is undoubtedly true. The fatal flaw in our societies is that only “bad behavior” can ensure our survival.

As Prof. Haidt notes above, for liberals, “the most sacred value is caring for victims of oppression.” He is right—though by any historical standard, this is a peculiar value to elevate to top rank. Spouting nonsense about “diversity” is a ticket to respectability while telling the truth can cost you a job. At the same time, most people are conformists and cowards, and are experts at convincing themselves they are neither.

Genuine risk, combined with our species’ talent for self deception, makes dissent even more difficult and all the more necessary.

Topics: , ,

Share This

Jared Taylor
Jared Taylor is the editor of American Renaissance and the author of White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century.
We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Athling

    Does Prof. Haidt ever concretely define morality? His definition of morality seems to be merely a collection of beliefs based on human emotions.

    “The real purpose of morality is to justify our own actions to others and to set up rules to compel them to act as we say they should.”

    Really? Here he seems to be describing custom not morality.

    “…less educated Westerners are more likely to think that certain things—homosexuality, incest, blasphemy, drug-taking, miscegenation, and prostitution, for example—are inherently bad whether they hurt anyone or not.”

    These things are not harmful for a society? Homosexuality, incest, and miscegenation if engaged in by large numbers will eventually destroy any society. This should be self-evident.

    I suppose Prof. Haidt would consider anyone seeking to ensure the survival of their own race as simply uneducated and delusional?

  • Unapologetic Racialist

    Liberals are as blind to arguments about anything being unfair to Whites as they are to arguments about Whites being inherently better at something. White privilege will always be a starting point for them, as well as multiculturalism always being good for us. Convincing them of anything would be trying to reason a pervert out of their perversion.
    When I was nominally liberal, I was attracted to the more “extreme” breed of nationalist because they appealed to the male in me. Our best chance is with those who were never liberal at heart, such as the young who’ve never had strong political convictions of any sort yet.

  • Anonymous

    Very interesting and well-presented article. 

    Despite being sensible to it, I cannot help thinking this kind of bioreductionist Weltanschauung (“there is no free will, we are simply tools of our genes”) logically leads to nihilism.

    • OPersephone

      There’s another way of looking at it: we exercise free will within the parameters set out by our genetic inheritance. One’s genetic potential can be squandered, maximized, or anything in between. Rather than making choices on our behalf, our genes define the range of possibilities available to us. For example, my genes may predispose me toward addiction, but it is my own free will whether I choose to take drugs in the first place. I don’t think the author of the book or the article were suggesting there is no free will at all.

      It also seems to me that nihilism requires absence of meaning. Biological determinism doesn’t necessarily involve a lack of meaning. It depends upon your existing Weltanschaung. The Odinists, for example, emphasize the important role of genetic inheritance, yet great meaning and spiritual significance are attached to this, and their philosophy of life never approaches nihilism.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/D7BX764AFX7YRN57CDP7IRUMNE Darryl

        And also, Justice (see photo above,) has really perky boobs.

    • http://www.newnation.org/ sbuffalonative

      “I cannot help thinking this kind of bioreductionist Weltanschauung (“there is no free will, we are simply tools of our genes”) logically leads to nihilism.”

      I would think that following the dictates of our genes would lead to personal happiness.

      Fighting our conservative nature by substituting it with liberal-‘progressive’ pie-in-the-sky fantasies only seems to increase  nihilism.

      Liberal-‘progressives’ seem to be consumed by hate and nihilism.

  • JohnEngelman

    Prof. Haidt points out something else: the liberal foundations of morality put the individual before the group. Conservatives care about individuals, too, but they also value the authority, loyalty, and sense of sanctity that groups require.                                                   
    – Jared Taylor             
                                      
                                                     
    This does not explain why conservatives are usually hostile to the government, why they value what they call “rugged individualism,” and why they oppose what they call “collectivism.” 

    • alas

      I would imagine this is because it is possible to have loyalty to an organisation other than the government. You have churches, family, communities, race, nation etc. all of these are not the government and often in conflict with it.

      To me, rugged individualism does not imply any dislike for authority necessarily. Somebody can be ruggedly individualistic and still respect the authority of the church, the police, the president etc. Not wanting to pay for benefit-scroungers and minorities does not make one against authority I say.

    • OPersephone

      Conservatives are usually only hostile to a government that doesn’t represent their values or oversteps its bounds; they value rugged individualism because it enables them to preserve, maintain and assert their “heretical” values and beliefs under a hostile regime; and they oppose the type of collectivism that erases natural identity and denies the interests of the individual, as opposed to a more traditional European balance of community, natural identity and individuality. What’s to explain?

    • http://www.newnation.org/ sbuffalonative

      There are different forms of authority and loyalty to authority. It could be that conservatives see the authority of government limiting their personal freedom rather than enhancing it.

      • http://www.facebook.com/willard.gage.3 Willard Gage

        “government” is often an authority external the group to which one belongs. Haidth is talking about group dynamics.

    • Pandemonium

      Conservatives are “usually hostile to the government” only when they see government encroaching on their liberties. Conservatives value the concept of ORDERED LIBERTY which requires government , but limited government.

      “Rugged individualism” is once again symptomatic of individual liberty which is highly valued by conservatives.

      And of course “collectivism” is far away from ordered liberty. Hive creatures love collectivism.

  • JohnEngelman

    When presenting an argument I try to restrict myself to facts I can document, while avoiding the use and the concept of “should.” The facts I post have policy implications, but I let the reader draw them. 

  • JohnEngelman

    There is often wisdom in tradition, even when the reasons for a tradition are dimly perceived. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/willard.gage.3 Willard Gage

      Sometimes they are corrupted over time so their original meaning and practice are totally lost. If one “rests” completely every seventh day, then one’s health is greatly improved. One needs to understand that “rest” means to also rest ones digestive system- to fast- every seventh day does a person much good. Fasting requires peace and calm as well, not emotional or boring sermons from a pulpit followed by cakes and pastries or a heavy breakfast at the Waffle House or Ihop.

  • whiteyyyyy

    Not really impressed with this evidence/research. 90% of it is common sense and intuitive. It should have been acknowledged decades ago. I’m not 100% on the pure motives angle either. This “We meant well ” act is not plausible. 

  • NorthernWind

    Prof. Haidt makes some excellent observations. I came to these conclusions myself only a little over one year ago. Any person sufficiently intelligent, learned, open-minded, and observant will come to similar conclusions over time.

    It is a pity that prof. Haidt had to ruin great thinking by making absurd and contradictory claims about the importance of race.

  • holyflower

    An excellent review.  One quibble, and it’s an important one.  Jonathan Haidt made a powerful presentation — followed by Q & A (total one hour) — on  BookTV.org on The Righteous Mind on March 21, 2012.  Watch it at:
    http://tinyurl.com/cno2dko

    By March Haidt seems to have revised his definition of “fairness” to better account for what Jared Taylor describes below:  “As Prof. Haidt notes, many liberals have a queer notion of ‘fairness’ that requires not just equal opportunity but equal outcomes.”

    In the March presentation Haidt seems to have eliminated the “equal outcomes” part of his original definition of “fairness” and incorporated that value into “caring.”

    Thus the March graphs do not match what Taylor displays above.   Scroll, for example, to the 35 minute point of the presentation for Haidt’s graph showing that the Left heavily favors “caring” whereas the Right heavily favors “liberty” and “fairness.” 

    That’s as opposed to Taylor’s graph above which shows that the Left heavily favors both “caring” AND “fairness.” That same graph shows the Right placing a lower value on both “fairness” AND “caring.”

    The March graphs for BookTV.org seem more consistent with reality.  In March, all six values — fairness, caring, liberty, loyalty, authority, and sanctity — are shown in a graph at the 43-minute mark.  This matches Taylor’s observation below:

    “As Prof. Haidt notes above, for liberals, the most sacred value is caring for victims of oppression. He is right—though by any historical standard, this is a peculiar value to elevate to top rank.”

    That’s the take-away.  The Left values “caring” above EVERYTHING.  Everything!

    * * *

    I strongly recommend that readers of this post take the time to watch the one-hour presentation.   Selected excerpt preceded by my all-cap summary of the content:

    “FOLLOW THE SACREDNESS,” DISCOVER A PEOPLE’S “SACRED OBJECTS.” THERE WILL BE THEIR SPHERE OF IRRATIONALITY, THEIR “RING OF IGNORANCE, SUBJECTS THEY ARE “THINKING BADLY ABOUT,” THAT “WARP THEIR THINKING” (excerpt begins at 47:00 into the video)It’s often said the world’s greatest wonder is the Grand Canyon . . . As a social scientist I think this is trivial.  The Grand Canyon is trivial.  Just wind and water and a lot of time and you get the Grand Canyon.  Not all that interesting to me.  What is really interesting to me is that there were people surviving in it and in all kinds of climates all around the world.  And sometimes people found ways to cooperate with each other, even beyond family.  So you get between about five or six thousand years ago and two thousand years ago you get things like Babylon arising . . . in the blink of an eye historically.  You get gigantic cities popping up — here’s Rome, and a little later in the New World you get Tenochtitlan.  These to me are most amazing things on Earth.  How did cities ever happen?  Why are we sitting here today?…Well, we happen to have this amazing trick never before done by any animal on the planet, which is we have the ability to — I’m sorry, here’s the other great builders [photos of giant bee hives and termite mounds] . . . the bees and the termites . . . They can build big things, but they’re all sisters.  They have kinship as there mechanism.How do we do it without kin?  Our answer is that we developed morality.  We developed the ability to live in moral communities, where we have norms.  We can punish each other, but it’s not all negatives.  A lot of it is positive.  One of the great abilities that we’ve developed is the ability to come together around sacred objects.  If we circle around them, we trust each other, and we cooperate.    Here’s an animation [graphic of stick figures holding hands circling a campfire] showing what happened when people first came together around campfires . . . Five to seven hundred thousand years ago, we find the first evidence of campfires.  What that means is that we had a division of labor among men and women.  That means that the men were out hunting, working together with non-kin and the women were tending the fire and cooking and tending the children and there was division of labor and there was trust.  And you had a large group.  It wasn’t just nuclear family.  Hunter gatherers were actually pretty genetically diverse . . .So when we got the ability to work together, that was the giant leap forward.  And a big part of that — I believe — there are many others, new atheists, who don’t think this, but I’m part of a group that believes that religion is an adaptation in our evolutionary history and I believe it is for cooperation.  We have the ability to circle around sacred objects, sometimes literally.  Many religious practices literally involve circling around a sacred object — That’s a rock [picture of cube-shaped building called the Kaaba containing a black stone in one corner which is thought to have been placed there by Abraham and Ishmael and to have been sent by angels from paradise] in Mecca with a box around it, but there’s a rock inside, they say.   Warfare would be impossible if we were just self-interested creatures.  But we circle around sacred objects: flag, standards.  Sacredness means no trade-offs.  It means you defend the thing you’ve circled around.  This is why the flag and the Bible are so important on the Right. But the Left has its sacred objects, too.  How many Martin Luther King jokes have you heard in your entire life?  Probably zero.  And if I were to tell one , you would hate me, because that would be sacrilege.So everybody, if you are part of a political movement, you probably have sacred objects.  You circle around them metaphorically or literally.  And then you can trust each other and work together.  So I’ll just read one paragraph from near the end of my book:“Morality binds and blinds . . . This is not just something that happens to people on the other side.  We all get sucked into tribal moral communities.  We circle around sacred values and then we share post hoc arguments about why we are so right and they are so wrong.  We think the other side is blind to truth, reason, science and common sense.  But in fact everyone goes blind when talking about their sacred objects.  Morality binds us into ideological teams that fight each other as though the fate of the world depended on our side winning each battle.  It blinds us to the fact that each team is composed of good people who have something important to say.”So just to close this section and the talk, implications for policy?  Follow the sacredness.  Around it you will find a ring of ignorance.  If you know what a group holds sacred, you know what they cannot think straight about . . . You will then find them denying the age of the Earth, let’s say, if you sacralize the Bible.   And if you sacralize the Earth, you are committed to thinking badly about global warming.  I believe it [global warming] is happening, but I’m also quite confident as a moral psychologist I can predict with almost perfect certainty that the Left is going to make a lot of mistakes.  There are going to be a lot of things like “Climategate” because . . . It’s a sacred issue binding the Left together.  It’s going to warp their thinking.  So follow the sacredness.And lastly politics is more like religion that it is like shopping.  You’ve got to understand the sacred element of politics.  So if politics is like religion, is there anything we can to do get us into the same congregation?  Well, yes, I’m hoping we find that asteroid [referring an earlier referenced example of a hypothetical asteroid hurtling toward the Earth forcing us to unite behind an effort to deflect the potentially planet-destroying body]. 

    • panjoomby

      thank you for the link & your insightful comments! i read (& liked) Haidt’s book, but found its essence better distilled & conveyed at the link you provide. Dr. Haidt is an excellent presenter & when he is interviewed on podcasts (just search on his name at iTunes) he is always informative & interesting. his book is excellent, but he is such an effective (& humorous!) presenter it’s worth it to listen to or see one of his presentations. the article above is an excellent introduction to his important contributions to the field/zeitgeist. but, seeing the graph/chart above with only 5 (empirical!) components to morality – i recalled the (kindle!) book had 6 components, so was confused – & your comment helped clear that up! thank you.

      • holyflower

        Glad, panjoomby, that you share my high estimation of the Haidt’s BookTV.org presentation.   Here is another excerpt from that presentation — this time on the taboo-in-academia topic of “group selection”.  The exchange occurs between 1:02:45 and 1:04:40 on the video:

        QUESTION (from audience): . . . You talk a little bit about group selection . . . the dynamics of group selection and religion . . . as an adaptive trait to make groups work together.  I just wonder what your thoughts are on the source of that.  Is that something . . . genetic, within a group?

        HAIDT: “. . . The general story here is that in the social sciences there has been a lot of effort in the last 40 or 50 years to simplify things, to adopt . . . Newtonian methods of the physical sciences and start with first principles — individuals maximizing their self interest — and then build up and show how individuals might cooperate in order to maximize their self-interest.  You can get pretty far with that, but I don’t think you can go all the way.  In my book I explain why you need to see evolution working on multiple levels: Genes compete with genes.  Individuals compete with individuals. And groups compete with groups.

        “. . . But the idea that groups compete with groups and that we are descended from winning groups, that has been a heresy in scientific circles since the 1960s so very few evolutionary theorists will talk about that.”

        • panjoomby

          amen, holyflower. he elaborates on that well in his audio podcast from “RSA – the groupish gene: hive psychology & the origins of morality & religion” & also in a “Point of Inquiry” podcast where he says given the social sciences are about 97% liberal/left — that given the left’s sacrilizing of victimized groups & their sacrilizing environmental rather than genetic explanations – that certain hypotheses to explain data are taboo & are not even brought to the table (i.e., mean group differences in intelligence, much of that difference due to genetic reasons, etc.) this politicism skews social science findings & leads to celebrating embellished environmental hypotheses based on shaky data, rather than apply occam’s razor & say “differences are real & mainly genetic.” his “free library podcast” is also very good. all these are free audio podcasts at iTunes (search on jonathan haidt). as an ex-academic (who got tired of university MCPC & left it all for self-employment) i applaud this man for being willing to state the reality of what i experienced almost every day. cheers! many of the hornet’s nests he stirred up can be perused at:
          http://people.virginia.edu/~jdh6n/postpartisan.html

          • holyflower

            You provided a great link, panjoomby.  I’ve already listened to the famous Haidt speech to the gathering of social psychologists and found much new to me, such  as the hard evidence for accelerated evolution in the last 10,000 years. 

            But there is so much more.  Thanks.

    • Flytrap

       I want to read your book, so write it if you haven’t already.

  • anonymous_amren

    I can see why liberals are so keen to ban Haidt Speech.

    But It’s funny to read a defence of religion on the basis that humans evolved that way :-). One of the weirdest things about Amren is that we are constantly talking about human evolution, with a depth of understanding more than most radical atheists, and yet we keep supporting Christianity too. A strange contradiction.

    As for the conclusion, you are right that we need to appeal to liberals’ sense of fairness. Although we need to stop thinking of their kind of fairness as “queer”, it’s not, it’s just something most white people value.
    We can also appeal to their caring though. I know we don’t like thinking like this, but white people ARE weak in some ways. Physically we mature slower than black people, so we get bullied at school, even as adults we are much less violent and don’t like to or aren’t allowed to fight or even talk back. Liberals love caring for the weak and oppressed, and if it was any other situation they would be rushing to defend the poor little white people. There may be oportunities for us to highlight our vulnerability, maybe focus on barbaric crimes that are committed against white people, particularly women and children.

    But for me it was pure scientific research data that changed me from far left to so-called “far right”.

    • Anonymous White Male

      ” Liberals love caring for the weak and oppressed”.

      I’m sure that there are liberals that this would apply to. However, I don’t really know any that “walk the walk”. I feel that a statistically large numbers of “Liberals” are liberals because it seems to be “winning the popularity contest”. The media and academia present it as the new & “cool” form of religion. It is a matter of “self-righteous cred”. For instance, liberals don’t really “care” about blacks. They just pay lip service to it. If they were the ones that had to support it without reaching into conservative’s wallets they would cease their foolish and self-destructive posturing. How many liberals do you know that actually live with blacks? In fact it is their distance from “real” blacks that allows them to reject facts and  statistical data. I would also like to see a study about the decline in liberal posturing after they have children. Whether the book deals with it or not, maturity and being truly responsible for someone else changes a person’s core values and beliefs. Hence, the quote that has been attributed to Churchill, ” “Show me a young Conservative and I’ll show you someone with no heart.
      Show me an old Liberal and I’ll show you someone with no brains.”

    • JohnEngelman

      But for me it was pure scientific research data that changed me from far left to so-called “far right”.                                                             
      – anonymolus_amren
                              
                   
      Genetics provides evidence for race realism.
                     
      Economics provides proof that since 1920 there has usually been more economic growth per year under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents, and more job creation per year from the presidencies of Harry Truman to George W. Bush. 
                         
      http://www.singularity.com/charts/page99.html      
                  
      http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/  
                                   
      In addition, tax increases for the rich generate more of an increase in income tax revenue than tax cuts for those people.
                      
      http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213    
                   
      http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=203    
                     
      Those who believe that a Republican sweep in the next election will lead to a robust job market, while reducing the national debt believe something for which there is very little evidence. Most of the economic evidence leads to a contrary conclusion. 

      • holyflower

        John,

        Economic calamity looms whatever the outcome of the election.

        The critical choice as regards the election is on what sort of federal judges do we want to bestow life-tenure?

        Do we want Democrat judges like Sotomayor-Ginsburg-Kagan-Breyer to constitute a majority on the Supreme and on the lower appellate courts?  All ruling under a “living constitution” doctrine that means that the Constitution means whatever they feel inclined to say it means”?

        Do we want, for example, a Democrat-judge-imposed expansion of racial quotas, accelerated race replacement via more rulings favoring illegal aliens?  Do we want an expansion of court-decreed housing integration, a revival of busing for racial balance in schools?

        These are just a few of many possibilities if a Democrat President gets to appoint federal judges over the next four years.

        Just to illustrates how powerful these judges are.  It only took one Democrat Jimmy Carter-appointed federal judge to block the wishes of  59 percent of California voters who passed Prop 187 and later one Democratic governor Gray Davis to block California’s appeal.

        Now California is an immigration-swamped basket case.   That’s the kind of “fundamental transformation” Democrats can engineer if they are put in a position to appoint judges.

        • JohnEngelman

          I dislike the Supreme Court as an institution. What most upsets me is the recent decision overturning most laws restricting campaign financing. 

      • anonymous_amren

        Right wingers, particularly in the USA, have some very strange ideas about economics. Government economic theory goes something like this:

        Left-wingers: “I’m in debt and don’t have enough money, I’d better get a job and start providing some goods or services in return for money.”

        Right-wingers: “I’m in debt and don’t have enough money, I’d better stop working, stop accepting money in return for goods or services, and spend my time cutting out coupons and hunting for the cheapest discount prices instead.”

        Which is ironic considering their individual behaviours are the opposite.

        I’m not a citizen of the USA, so I don’t get to vote (unless perhaps I can get to Mexico then find some Democrats to smuggle me across the border). I don’t know who I would vote for if I could vote. The most urgent apocalypse that the US government needs to take drastic measures to prevent is global warming. The second most urgent apocalypse is the destruction of all white civilisations by flooding them with third-worlders. I am half inclined to hold my nose and vote for whoever would do the best to stop global warming, but on the other hand they stand no chance of winning, or of actually doing anything significant if they did win. Tough call. It would be nice if some candidate would try to prevent both apocalypses.

        I still find myself sad when Romney does badly in the polls and happy when he’s winning though, I can’t help it.

        • JohnEngelman

          The leaders of the Democratic and the Republican parties do not really want to reduce third immigration to the United States. The leaders of the Democratic Party want more Democratic voters. In addition, I think they really do care about immigrants, especially if they are destitute, or the victims of third world dictators. 
                                
          The leaders of the Republican Party want more low wage workers to depress wages. This is because they really do care about employers and investors. 

        • dmxinc

           You clearly do not understand right or left wingers in the US.  I was baffled by your statements until I saw that you were not an American.

          You think a “right-winger” is in debt or is short on money and thinks “I’d better stop working and clip coupons”?  You are way out of touch.

          • anonymous_amren

             No, I think that’s their approach to GOVERNMENT. You completely misread what I said.

        • Pandemonium

          “The most urgent apocalypse that the US government needs to take drastic measures to prevent is global warming.”
          Realizing that this site is not here to promote or refute such things as man-made global warming, I simply cannot let such a statement go by without suggesting that you do a little research on the issue. 

          The scientist who started the man-made global warming movement has since refuted it as rubbish. I will later provide to you an article he recently wrote (I don’t have it at my fingertips). 

          Many reputable scientists are now speaking out against the idea of man-made global warming. 

          • Pandemonium

            http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2012/08/24/global-warming-theory-fails-again/

            Read the above article for starters. Then search “Roger Revelle” considered one of the fathers of Man-made climate change. Also search Michael Griffin considered another “father” of man-made global warming.

          • anonymous_amren

            That’s not true, and it’s not how science works either.
            You are being ridden by your elephant, instead of the other way around.

    • razorrare

      But It’s funny to read a defence of religion on the basis that humans evolved that way:-).One of the weirdest things about amren  is that we are constantly talking about human evolution,with a depth of understanding more than most radical atheists,and yet we keep supporting Christianity too.A strange contradiction…

      Jewish supremacism promotes evolution to corrupt humanity. Unfortunately,
      resisters of Zionism are also prey to this destructive theory, and it will
      eventually cause our resistance to self-destruct through racism and violence…personally,i support the theory of creationism… all humans have a soul…we are in the end times…beware of false phrophets. 

      • WhiteGuyInJapan

        If you want to look at religion and religious belief from an evolutionary point of view, you may have to consider more than one possibility.  Basically, did humans evolve to have religious belief or did we evolve to have certain psychological/emotional drives and needs that are met by religion?  In other words, does religion represent an adaptive strategy or is it a by-product of adaptive strategies?

        Humans are unique in that we have a sense of displacement and can think about other places or contemplate the future (including our own mortality).  Many religions (I’m thinking of Judaism and Islam in particular) have food taboos that certainly improved the health and longevity of people who followed the tenets of their faiths (although may seem pointless in the modern world).   Many religions also have strict rules on sexual behavior (although some are maladpative from a genetic perspective) and prohibitions on killing people within one’s community (killing outsiders is sometimes OK, though). 

        I can see advantageous implications for all of the above behavior.  Still not sure about the chicken or egg part of the evolutionary question.

        • JohnEngelman

          A single religion can unify a tribe or a nation and give it greater cohesion in conflicts with other tribes or nations. If the religion promises life after death it can enhance the courage of warriors and military men.
                                                     
          The Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East has preserved the Assyrian nation.  The Chaldean Catholic Church has held together the Chaldean nation. By turns each of these was once the strongest nation in the West.
                   
          A problem with religion to national survival is that in the modern world science is important in developing better weapons. A fundamentalist religion can interfere with the advance of scientific discoveries.

    • 1Forced_Registration

      Its not just religion that builds great societies, but religions with specific values that build great societies.  Haidt’s version is a little simple, and takes for granted quite a few things that are cultural to here as the norm for all time. These inventions (customs, morals, what have you) were extremely changing; the main one being the switch from tribalism to what we would consider the traditional family.

      Worth a read — the book is available for free online — is the book Suffering Patriarchy. It can be viewed here: http://www.angelfire.com/home/sufferingpatriarchy/index2.html

       

    • http://www.newnation.org/ sbuffalonative

      One of the weirdest things about Amren is that we are constantly talking about human evolution, with a depth of understanding more than most radical atheists, and yet we keep supporting Christianity too. A strange contradiction.

      If you take away the miracles, the moral and ethical tenets of Christianity (fairness, compassion, charity etc) are cohesive elements of  a strong social system.

      Did Christianity give us our morals or did our genes make Christianity inevitable?

  • Mahound

    It would be fair to say that I grew up very much thinking like a liberal, or libertarian would probably be a better description. But if my journey to conservatism could be summed up in one sentence it would be this one:

    “in the long run, only a conservative government can guarantee us the liberal society that we so love and crave”

    And so it came to be that this metro-sexual liberal turned into a ethnocentric traditionalist conservative.

  • Kevin W. Cornell

    (1) I’m surprised Nietzsche’s critique of morality wasn’t mentioned in this article; and (2) I think it is necessary to distinguish morality/moral systems from religion, which I define as beliefs specifically about the supernatural, even though the two obviously get intertwined. Though Prof. Haidt isn’t totally wrong to think that “religion arose as a mechanism to set the rules for a smooth-running moral community and to bind people to its values,” I agree with the late Christopher Hitchens that religious explanations for things essentially represent man’s first stab at science/philosophy. Moreover, it’s critical to point out that religions obviously rise at least in part due to mass delusion/psychosis/stupidity – i.e., people think that some strange man in the wilderness is a prophet, a cult forms around that strange man, and if that cult is successful it eventually becomes an entrenched institution. 

  • Fighting_Northern_Spirit

    Interesting article and book.  Perhaps it would be helpful to solicit from us what exactly made each of us embrace race realism.  I would bet that a lot of us had to shake off years of egalitarian conditioning.  Myself, I came from pretty far left libertarianism.  I could write a book on the subject, but that’s not a good thing really – I don’t want people’s eyes to glaze over.  Maybe a series of targeted questions, limited in scope?  To see what approaches work, it’s good to examine those who have made the journey.

    • 1Forced_Registration

       For me it was living in close proximity to blacks that started to crumble the liberal views I grew up with. I watched the moral depravity, the crime, the (generally) lower IQ, and a sickeningly depraved culture up close, and personal. Some of those incidents such as the dragging of the Arabic owner of a liquor store while a mob of blacks beat him to death bricks have formed memories I wish I could part with. The blacks that hurled a molotov at me for the simple reason I was white, and doing business in a black neighborhood also made an impression I wish I could forget; as did the Gangster Disciples that put out a welcome mat for me at Grand & Carter in St Louis. 

      Other events I now find somewhat humorous such as: a truck being hijacked, and its entire contents being distributed door to door across 2 blocks in North St Louis — with not a single person in those 2 blocks stepping forward to say a word to the police (most had some of the goods in their home, but not everyone). The latter incident changed my mind about the relative morality of the black population living there. This was not what cemented my transformation though. The events that molded my transformation into stone were moving to Germany in the 90’s, and then coming back to the United States. Yes, I made many friends of the Turks and emphasized with them as an outsider in the culture, but Germany was a majority German state, and I could walk the streets of Hamburg in complete safety.  I realized how a white culture could work, what I had been denied due to unchecked immigration, black crime, multiculturalism, and the loss of our formerly beautiful cities in America. When I stepped off the plane, and returned to the city of my birth I felt like I was robbed of my birthright as a white person. Every time I drive through a major American city I can see the remnants of what we built, and see its decay in the hands of its new caretakers.

      When I came back from Germany I realized just how irreconcilable the differences in thinking, behavior, planning, intelligence, self-control, and morality were between the races living here. I came to see the people pushing blacks on to me at every turn as the enemy, and thus our government, media establishment, and even many of our educational institutions  as largely the enemy of my interests, and the enemy of the interests of my family. The more contact I have with the people who want to push the position that multiculturalism is a good thing, that forcing blacks into my neighborhood is a good thing, that we need special minority set asides, and differing standards for races for behavior — the more repulsed I have become at their position.

       I moved away from blacks to get away from black behavior, black crime, and black culture; it is a matter of deep, and bitter resent at this point that I cannot escape it fully. I still have several liberal friends; some of them are extremely liberal. In the past I have felt that most of them were simply naive or looking out for single interest issues (gay rights, abortion..etc). Now I see what needs to happen to eliminate that gulf, and it wont be easy to accomplish.

      This was actually one of the better postings to Amren to understanding why that gulf exists. The only way that we can reach those individuals who hold liberal views is by taking back control of the media, and using it in the same sappy emotional patter manner that made Oprah a success. If all they will taste is sugar, we need to feed them the most refined white sugar we can, and the only way to elicit that empathy is going to be with visual media that goes beyond simple reason. Thus we can make the lies taste like the bitterness that they are, and bring them back into our own group.

       

      • anonymous_amren

        Part of the reason liberals control the media is because liberals are, by definition, creative and imaginative. But conservatives like preserving things rather than creating new ideas. So liberals produce most of our arts and entertainment, which gives them free reign to indoctrinate people how they want. We need to be writing novels, writing songs, making TV shows, making computer games, etc. And they need to be good ones, not our usual rubbish.

        • Anonymous

          You touched on something very true.

          However, your solution is something I disagree with.

      • JohnEngelman

        In order to see what blacks are really like one probably needs to see them up close every day. One needs to interact with them on terms of approximate equality in an environment where they are in the clear majority. 
                                          
        When blacks are in the minority most try to behave. When they are in the majority most behave the way they want to behave. 
                                         
        Affluent liberals and conservatives usually only know a few blacks. These few are exceptional or they occupy subordinate positions without resentment. 
         

    • anonymous_amren

      Personality-wise I’m very much a liberal. (Definately not a libertarian though. I suspect libertarians would show up differently to liberals on Haidt’s morality charts.)

      I was a communist political activist for about a decade, with lots of social Marxism, especially anti-racism. I didn’t live anywhere near any black people or most third-worlders, and my main experience with other races was North East Asians (IQ 106), and Vietnamese (IQ 94), so I did truely honestly believe in racial equality.

      One day someone sent me a link to a documentary about the woman who did that blue-eyed / brown-eyed apartheid experiment on young children to try to explain to them about the assasination of Martin Luthor King Jr. I’d already seen it of course, but I watched it again and was very impressed with her, so I looked her up on Wikipedia to learn more.

      The article mentioned how IQ tests are biased against black people, and mentioned there was a black IQ test called the Chitling test. So I Googled it and looked at the test and thought it was stupid and ridiculous and had no scientific merit. So I Googled “black IQ test” to look for other ones…

      And that returned a wealth of information about scientific research into racial differences in IQ. And being a scientist at heart, and truely understanding the political consequences of what such a huge IQ difference would mean, I couldn’t just brush that away or ignore it. So I looked for tests of whether that was genetic or environmental. I looked at adoption studies and things like that. And it certainly seemed genetic and unchangeable.

      I thought the IQ difference was so huge though that it couldn’t be right. It would mean that half of all Africans are clinically retarded, and that black people in the United States would normally act like idiots. So I looked up videos on youtube of black people and ones about South Africa, and saw that Africans do indeed behave, and build societies, like people who are clinically retarded, and that African Americans do normally act like idiots, exactly fitting my mental images of what IQ 70 and IQ 85 people would be like.

      Even though I now knew black people were inferior, I still just wanted to help black people, and use the accurate information about their stupidity to come up with better plans for saving Africans. I learned about Apartheid and realised that was actually good for black people, and about segregation.

      I started visiting a mixture of various sites, some humorous and sympathetic to black people (eg. Stuff Black People Don’t Like), and respectably intellectual sites like Amren, and full-on racist sites like South Africa Sucks that don’t pull any punches (but was shut down by traitorous Reindeer).

      I came to recognise black people as the oppressors rather than the victims, and slowly lost all sympathy for them. After a year I had completely transformed from a hardcore anti-racism activist to a hard-core pro-racism activist.

      Now I support almost all racist policies throughout history, and even with the ones I don’t support, I still completely understand and sympathise with the reasoning behind them. I can’t quite bring myself to support Zionism though, even though it’s an extremely racist movement.

      • http://www.facebook.com/willard.gage.3 Willard Gage

        I think you hit on something that Haidt missed when you said “I wanted to save them”. I think this motivation is at the heart of most liberals. They see themselves as superior to blacks and they also see an opportunity to “save” them. Once people no longer have a “group” identity, where they fit into a social structure, they try to create their own little social structures. Structures where they are at the very pinnacle, handing out the gooding and having the objects of their benevolence indebted to, and subservient to them. Of course this is self serving, and of course, this never works with black people because they are not capable of gratitude.

      • http://www.newnation.org/ sbuffalonative

        I was watching an old interview on c-span with a very liberal woman who wrote a book about education. She made all the claims about racist IQ test and how our educational system was failing blacks.
         
        She brought up something that shocked her. In the early 20th century, a progressive wrote that blacks were less intelligent and that we should concentrate on teaching them trades instead of expecting them to become doctors and such.
         
        She was surprised by this view from a progressive.
         
        What this women didn’t understand was that this progressive was really being honest and was trying to help blacks by teaching to their level. Expecting large numbers of blacks to become doctors just isn’t going to happen so it was far more kind and ‘progressive’ to accept this fact and teach them trades.
         
        Even old ‘progressives’ were actually familiar with the IQs of blacks.
         

  • razorrare

    Okay, i will make this short & simply say this…I believe there is right & there is wrong,that there is good and there is evil, and there is a heaven & there is a hell,and that  we are now in the End Times as foretold in the Bible…I would wonder what great minds like Johnathan Haidt & others with  such literary talents would think of the millions of spiritual or super-natural experiences mankind has personally witnessed to(example-life after death or out of body experiences)…are we to say that ALL their testimonies are not valid or true?…Here is a man i have great respect for who is neither a conformist nor a coward who gave testimony/eulogy to his wife Alynn’s death…I believe 100% his testimony…many of you here may be familiar with his name–Ted Pike..if not you should be..he has already accomplish much more than all of us collectively could ever hope to imagine could do to fight the real evil of those who would want to commit genocide on the worldwide White(Christian) gentile population…Read Ted Pike: My Wife Died a Martyr for God & Freedom…

     http://www.truthtellers.org/alerts/tedpikewifediedmartyr.html

  • razorrare

    Okay, i will make this short & simply say this…I believe there is right & there is wrong,that there is good and there is evil, and there is a heaven & there is a hell,and that we are now in the End Times as foretold in the Bible…I would wonder what great minds like Johnathan Haidt & others with such literary talents would think of the millions of spiritual or super-natural experiences mankind has personally witnessed to(example-life after death or out of body experiences)…are we to say that ALL their testimonies are not valid or true?…Here is a man i have great respect for who is neither a conformist nor a coward who gave testimony/eulogy to his wife Alynn’s death…I believe 100% his testimony…many of you here may be familiar with his name–Ted Pike..if not you should be..he has already accomplish much more than all of us collectively could ever hope to imagine could do to fight the real evil of those who would want to commit genocide on the worldwide White(Christian) gentile population…Read Ted Pike: My Wife Died a Martyr for God & Freedom…

    http://www.truthtellers.org/alerts/tedpikewifediedmartyr.html

  • Pandemonium

    Razorrare,
    “I would wonder what great minds like Johnathan Haidt & others with such literary talents would think of the millions of spiritual or super-natural experiences mankind has personally witnessed to(example-life after death or out of body experiences)…are we to say that ALL their testimonies are not valid or true?.”
    One way to look at these “supernatural” experiences is simply to accept that we do not yet understand much at all of the “natural world”.
    I am one of those people who look back 300 years and marvel at the understanding we have achieved, yet I look forward 1000 years and wonder about what we WILL have achieved by then. Then try to imagine 10,000 years in the future (Assuming we don’t destroy ourselves in the interim (and the White race survives)).

    We know so very little of the natural world that some things that happen can only be classified as “supernatural”. Humans’ ability to learn is, I think, infinite. The more we learn, the more there is to learn. 

    • razorrare

      ZIONIST EVANGELICALS ARE WORLD-CLASS CENSORS

      By Rev. Ted Pike16 May 12

      The Bible and western civilization are dedicated to a simple affirmation,
      enunciated by Christ: “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall
      make you free.” God offered the Hebrews the law, with its promise that truth is
      enlightening, redeeming and cleansing, that it will help people of goodwill to
      create happy, wholesome lives. The Greek philosophers also agreed that the whole
      truth could be discovered, banish superstition and create progress. In
      this article I discuss the evils of censorship, particularly by leaders of the
      pro-Zionist religious right. Such routinely keep from their followers vital
      truth about Judaism, Jewish control, and Zionist abuses in the Mideast.

      To be a Christian and heir of the truth-seeking legacy means one abhors
      censorship. Of course, we are not obligated to provide a forum for lies or
      defamation. Government must restrict speech in wartime, because of national
      security, or to save human life. Generally speaking, however, all men should
      have free access to truth and follow leaders who speak it. It is an assault on
      God’s law and human freedom to censor vital facts and information, even for
      ostensibly “good purposes.”

      Censors believe people can’t be trusted to make the best choices. Wise
      gatekeepers should limit access to information. The masses should only receive
      what is “constructive.” A perfect example is Europe’s harsh penalties for those
      who question facts about the Holocaust. Such inquiries are considered so
      damaging that they must not even exist. To evangelical Zionist leadership, it is
      also constructive to strike down all criticism of Israel or the fact of Jewish
      supremacist control.

      We usually think of totalitarian governments as the great censors. Liberal
      media is also recognized for its biased gatekeeping of information. But
      evangelicals rival all other censors regarding facts about Jews and Israel.
      Evangelical news sources and Christian “watchdog” groups allow no hint
      of the true nature of modern Talmudic Judaism, Jewish control, or Zionist
      oppression against the Palestinians. There are several reasons. First,
      evangelicals are afraid of spreading the toxin of “anti-Semitism” to suggestible
      listeners if they speak any truth. Second, evangelicals fear being judged by God
      for “cursing” Jews with criticism. Third, evangelicals live in a culture so
      dominated by Zionism that they resist even considering the darker
      truths about Judaism for themselves, and certainly would not speak it out for
      fear for their reputation, friendships and social power. The price for
      “anti-Semitism” is so high that it functions like an intellectual checkpoint,
      bristling with machine guns, blocking the way to even considering the whole
      truth—much less passing it on.

      Therefore, Christian media affirms by its actions that rigorous pro-Zionist
      censorship—by both Christian and secular media—is necessary and good. Truth
      about Talmudic Judaism’s teachings against Christians and Gentiles or about
      Israel’s ongoing genocide against the Palestinians is “bad truth.” They believe
      God Himself supports shielding society from this “bad truth.”

      Yet where, I ask, in the Bible or in the great professions, such as law,
      science, literature, philosophy, the arts, is it accepted that there exists
      truth so incompatible with human knowledge that it can be called “bad” and kept
      from members of that profession? Instead (despite the tyrannies of liberalism
      and evolution in these disciplines) it is taken for granted, at least outwardly,
      that while lies, distortions, and half-truths exist there is no such thing as
      “bad truth.” There are no facts that should be excluded from examination.
      Rather, all ideas should be allowed to exist and see the light of day. This is
      so evil ideas can be rejected and true ones embraced. To facilitate this, God
      has endowed most of us with minds and consciences equal to the task. We are not
      inferior to our censors.

      Evangelical Censors are Self-Protective

      Christian Zionist censors also fear the whole truth because, if truth is
      allowed, the flimsy house of stacked cards they inhabit will fall. People armed
      with all the facts will perceive the censors as self serving. People will
      realize they have been deprived by leaders of one of the few things that should
      be guaranteed unconditionally: access to all truth.What would happen if
      evangelical censors spoke the whole truth about Judaism? Only good. Truth
      redeems and orients its listeners. At last enlightened, they could restrain
      non-Christian hearers of such truth from extremism and anti-Semitism. Truth
      united with Biblical balance would return Christians to a New Testament, not
      Zionist-created, approach to Jews. Christians would understand that the historic
      “Jewish problem” does not exist because Gentiles are irrationally anti-Semitic
      nor because Jews are evolutionary misfits, innately degenerate (a truly
      anti-Semitic belief). Instead, it exists because their forefathers rejected
      Jesus and followed the Pharisees who crucified Him. As a result of moral
      failing Jewry has sunk into deepest spiritual darkness, causing many Jews,
      as Scripture says, to become “corruptors” (Isaiah 1:4). Yet the whole truth as
      Scripture declares it mollifies any real hatred of Jews. It provides a glorious
      light of redemption at the end of this dark tunnel. A remnant of Jews will
      repent at Christ’s coming and be restored to divine favor. The whole world will
      be at rest for a thousand years.

      These simple biblical conclusions, the result of seeking and finding the
      whole truth, are the basis for all anti-Zionist resistance at http://www.truthtellers.org. The
      furthest thing from anti-Semitism, they are the result of discovering the truth
      of Judaism and applying it from a truly Christian perspective. As a result, the
      truth at http://www.truthtellers.org is not confined to Christians but
      radiates out to moderate those who might abuse it. We give back to the church
      and world what “Israel-first” Christian media has taken from them: a balanced,
      biblical view of reality.

      Summary

      Censorship of facts necessary to make informed judgments about the great
      issues of our time is never authorized by God but is an abomination. It opposes
      Him because it puts mankind under the guidance not of Himself and the broad and
      varied influences of reality but of the notions of what is safe and constructive
      according to a small-minded editorial elite. It doesn’t matter how altruistic
      the censor claims to be—even claiming, as does Christian media, that it censors
      in order to keep the Jews from returning to the ovens of another Holocaust.
      Censorship is always injurious because it confines to a few the precious truth
      God intends for the many men and women of good intention in every age who will
      not abuse it.

      Truth can take care of itself.

    • anonymous_amren

       “I would wonder what great minds like Johnathan Haidt & others with
      such literary talents would think of the millions of spiritual or
      super-natural experiences mankind has personally witnessed
      to(example-life after death or out of body experiences)…are we to say
      that ALL their testimonies are not valid or true?.”

      They’d think there have never been any such super-natural experiences, only stupid gullible people. And yes, we are to say that ALL their testimonies are not valid or true.

      By the way, that “ALL” trick of yours is a classic liberal anti-racism one.

      • Pandemonium

        “By the way, that “ALL” trick of yours is a classic liberal anti-racism one.”
        I don’t know what you are talking about. That “ALL” statement was made by Razorrare. I don’t know what happened to her post, but it seemed to have disappeared. I don’t do “tricks”.

        • anonymous_amren

           Then I was talking to Razorrare. But as I couldn’t find that post, I replied there, sorry.

    • http://www.facebook.com/willard.gage.3 Willard Gage

      Out of that whole article, you focus on one very tangental point. The article was not about the validity of religion or “spiritual experiences”.

      • Pandemonium

        I was simply replying to a post by Razorrare which seems to have disappeared. I was NOT referring to anything in the article.

  • JohnEngelman

    A “Conservative” is a Liberal from a earlier era (with certain right wing sprinkle dust added into the mix). In current time period, a Conservative is most likely someone who wants a early to mid 19th century America.                             
    – Anonymous
                  
                         
    I would call that person a reactionary. 
             
    The Republican Party has accepted the civil rights legislation of the 1960s. Nevertheless, the economic right wants to restore laissez faire capitalism. The religious right wants to restore Victorian sex morality and the status Protestantism once had as the de facto established religion in the United States. What unites these often disparate constituencies within the GOP is nostalgia for the nineteenth century. 

    • Pandemonium

      You are conflating, once again, “conservative” with “Republican Party”/Republican. 

      They are two very different ideas.

      • curri

        Yes, the GOP is just as much an instrument of leftist hegemony as the Dems.  GOP opposition to the Regime is merely rhetorical.  “Boob bait for the Bubbas” as  James Carville once put it. 

        Matt Parrott has some relevant commentary re this:
        http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/08/epistemology-race-and-the-bazaar/ 
        Alexander Solzhenitsyn once asked, “If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”
        A similar challenge eventually confronts every individual who takes up the cause of the New Right in relation to modernity, as we’re all to varying degrees and in varying manners captivated by the liberal narrative. Dr. Mark Dyal’s recent essay, “Epistemology and the New Right,” grapples directly with this challenge. We must indeed purge ourselves of liberal premises, principles, and narratives lest we sink inexorably back into the cesspit of decadence we’re trying to claw our way out of. We must do more than merely defeating our obvious opponents to the left of us, we must defeat the left within ourselves.

        • curri

          Nobody should be fooled- GOP and Dems have become a single party of financial oligarchy and cultural Marxism.

          Reagan was more of a “Marxist” than Obama:
          http://www.capitalismwithoutfailure.com/2011/12/bill-black-on-incidence-of-fraud.html 
          On the prosecution of fraud following the Savings and Loan Crisis: Our agency filed over 10,000 criminal referrals that resulted in over 1,000 felony convictions.  We worked closely with the FBI and the Justice Department, to prioritize cases—creating the top 100 list of the 100 worst institutions which translated into about 600 or 700 executives. We went after the absolute worst frauds.

          On the prosecution of fraud following the current crisis: We now have appointed anti-regulators. The FBI warned in open testimony in the House of Representatives, in September 2004, that there was an epidemic of mortgage fraud, and they predicted that it would cause a financial crisis if it were not contained. It was not contained. Since then we have had zero criminal referrals. They completely shut down making criminal referrals. Both the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration have not made it a priority to prosecute these elite criminals who caused this devastating injury.
          (…)
          PBS FRONTLINE clip of “The Warning,” explaining how Clinton’s economic team blocked then CFTC chairperson Brooksley Born from regulating OTC derivatives, which enabled the completely secretive market to grow into the toxic nightmare that brought about the second near-meltdown during Bush’s term. 
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFnPT-umZxw 

    • http://www.facebook.com/willard.gage.3 Willard Gage

      Whites are being victimized all over the land. They are being attacked, just for being white, in restaurants, stores, workplaces and on city streets. This situation will guarantee that the civil rights revolution will be undone because now one group has no civil rights. The reality on the street is that it is always about groups. As this becomes more and more clear people will see segregation as a way of protecting the rights of individuals to be safe.

      • JohnEngelman

        You have made a number of assertions without documenting them. It is true that blacks have a rate of violent crime that exceeds the white rate.
                
        http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm  
                          
        Nevertheless, the rate of violent crime has declined fairly steadily since 1991.
                            
        http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm     
                                   
        It is reasonable therefore to assume that black attacks on whites are declining.  
                                 
        A person who spends a lot of time on the American Renaissance website, as I do, may reach another conclusion. This is because American Renaissance posts news stories of black on white crimes that happen anywhere in the United States. I have contributed some of those news stories myself. Nevertheless, the big picture is a good one.

  • razorrare

    ZIONIST EVANGELICALS ARE WORLD-CLASS CENSORS

    By Rev. Ted Pike16 May 12

    The Bible and western civilization are dedicated to a simple affirmation,
    enunciated by Christ: “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall
    make you free.” God offered the Hebrews the law, with its promise that truth is
    enlightening, redeeming and cleansing, that it will help people of goodwill to
    create happy, wholesome lives. The Greek philosophers also agreed that the whole
    truth could be discovered, banish superstition and create progress. In
    this article I discuss the evils of censorship, particularly by leaders of the
    pro-Zionist religious right. Such routinely keep from their followers vital
    truth about Judaism, Jewish control, and Zionist abuses in the Mideast.

    To be a Christian and heir of the truth-seeking legacy means one abhors
    censorship. Of course, we are not obligated to provide a forum for lies or
    defamation. Government must restrict speech in wartime, because of national
    security, or to save human life. Generally speaking, however, all men should
    have free access to truth and follow leaders who speak it. It is an assault on
    God’s law and human freedom to censor vital facts and information, even for
    ostensibly “good purposes.”

    Censors believe people can’t be trusted to make the best choices. Wise
    gatekeepers should limit access to information. The masses should only receive
    what is “constructive.” A perfect example is Europe’s harsh penalties for those
    who question facts about the Holocaust. Such inquiries are considered so
    damaging that they must not even exist. To evangelical Zionist leadership, it is
    also constructive to strike down all criticism of Israel or the fact of Jewish
    supremacist control.

    We usually think of totalitarian governments as the great censors. Liberal
    media is also recognized for its biased gatekeeping of information. But
    evangelicals rival all other censors regarding facts about Jews and Israel.
    Evangelical news sources and Christian “watchdog” groups allow no hint
    of the true nature of modern Talmudic Judaism, Jewish control, or Zionist
    oppression against the Palestinians. There are several reasons. First,
    evangelicals are afraid of spreading the toxin of “anti-Semitism” to suggestible
    listeners if they speak any truth. Second, evangelicals fear being judged by God
    for “cursing” Jews with criticism. Third, evangelicals live in a culture so
    dominated by Zionism that they resist even considering the darker
    truths about Judaism for themselves, and certainly would not speak it out for
    fear for their reputation, friendships and social power. The price for
    “anti-Semitism” is so high that it functions like an intellectual checkpoint,
    bristling with machine guns, blocking the way to even considering the whole
    truth—much less passing it on.

    Therefore, Christian media affirms by its actions that rigorous pro-Zionist
    censorship—by both Christian and secular media—is necessary and good. Truth
    about Talmudic Judaism’s teachings against Christians and Gentiles or about
    Israel’s ongoing genocide against the Palestinians is “bad truth.” They believe
    God Himself supports shielding society from this “bad truth.”

    Yet where, I ask, in the Bible or in the great professions, such as law,
    science, literature, philosophy, the arts, is it accepted that there exists
    truth so incompatible with human knowledge that it can be called “bad” and kept
    from members of that profession? Instead (despite the tyrannies of liberalism
    and evolution in these disciplines) it is taken for granted, at least outwardly,
    that while lies, distortions, and half-truths exist there is no such thing as
    “bad truth.” There are no facts that should be excluded from examination.
    Rather, all ideas should be allowed to exist and see the light of day. This is
    so evil ideas can be rejected and true ones embraced. To facilitate this, God
    has endowed most of us with minds and consciences equal to the task. We are not
    inferior to our censors.

    Evangelical Censors are Self-Protective

    Christian Zionist censors also fear the whole truth because, if truth is
    allowed, the flimsy house of stacked cards they inhabit will fall. People armed
    with all the facts will perceive the censors as self serving. People will
    realize they have been deprived by leaders of one of the few things that should
    be guaranteed unconditionally: access to all truth.What would happen if
    evangelical censors spoke the whole truth about Judaism? Only good. Truth
    redeems and orients its listeners. At last enlightened, they could restrain
    non-Christian hearers of such truth from extremism and anti-Semitism. Truth
    united with Biblical balance would return Christians to a New Testament, not
    Zionist-created, approach to Jews. Christians would understand that the historic
    “Jewish problem” does not exist because Gentiles are irrationally anti-Semitic
    nor because Jews are evolutionary misfits, innately degenerate (a truly
    anti-Semitic belief). Instead, it exists because their forefathers rejected
    Jesus and followed the Pharisees who crucified Him. As a result of moral
    failing Jewry has sunk into deepest spiritual darkness, causing many Jews,
    as Scripture says, to become “corruptors” (Isaiah 1:4). Yet the whole truth as
    Scripture declares it mollifies any real hatred of Jews. It provides a glorious
    light of redemption at the end of this dark tunnel. A remnant of Jews will
    repent at Christ’s coming and be restored to divine favor. The whole world will
    be at rest for a thousand years.

    These simple biblical conclusions, the result of seeking and finding the
    whole truth, are the basis for all anti-Zionist resistance at http://www.truthtellers.org. The
    furthest thing from anti-Semitism, they are the result of discovering the truth
    of Judaism and applying it from a truly Christian perspective. As a result, the
    truth at http://www.truthtellers.org is not confined to Christians but
    radiates out to moderate those who might abuse it. We give back to the church
    and world what “Israel-first” Christian media has taken from them: a balanced,
    biblical view of reality.

    Summary

    Censorship of facts necessary to make informed judgments about the great
    issues of our time is never authorized by God but is an abomination. It opposes
    Him because it puts mankind under the guidance not of Himself and the broad and
    varied influences of reality but of the notions of what is safe and constructive
    according to a small-minded editorial elite. It doesn’t matter how altruistic
    the censor claims to be—even claiming, as does Christian media, that it censors
    in order to keep the Jews from returning to the ovens of another Holocaust.
    Censorship is always injurious because it confines to a few the precious truth
    God intends for the many men and women of good intention in every age who will
    not abuse it.

    Truth can take care of itself.

  • http://skadhitheraverner.wordpress.com/ Skadhi_the_Raverner

    Excellent piece about an excellent psychologist. Moar!

  • razorrare

    A History of Hate for Christian Values

    Let’s trace ADL/B’nai B’rith creation of hate laws over the past 38
    years.

    1971. After ten years lobbying, B’nai B’rith Canada and the Canadian Jewish
    Congress persuaded Ottawa to enact their federal “anti-hate” law, the Canadian
    Human Rights Act. Its Sec. 319 and subsequent provincial hate laws criminalize
    any speech even “likely” to cause hatred or contempt against specially federally
    protected groups—especially homosexuals, Jews, Muslims, immigrants,
    but never Christians.

    1985. ADL began massive programs to end “bias,” “hate,” and Christian
    “homophobia” in American businesses, local governments and schools. Since its
    inception, ADL’s World of Difference program has instructed, according to ADL,
    “more than 375,000 elementary and secondary school teachers, responsible for
    nearly 12 million students” toward “tolerance” of homosexuality.(2)

    1988. ADL sponsored a nationwide competition open to all law students in
    America, to craft a “model” anti-hate law for the US. Jewish law student Joseph
    Ribikoff won first prize with his proposal to criminalize all
    Christian/conservative leaders who criticize homosexuality as well as all loyal
    members. (3) Through the 1990s, ADL persuaded roughly 45 states to adopt some
    version of its refined model hate law. Visit http://www.adl.org for detailed charts
    about states’ implementation. During this time ADL also established hate law
    bureaucracies throughout Europe.

    1990. ADL was convicted in a California court of violating the civil rights
    of more than 10,000 conservatives, pro-lifers, members of the political right
    and Muslims on whom ADL had spied over the years, keeping secret surveillance
    files. (4) My father and I were listed in these files gathered in cooperation
    with West coast police departments.

    1990. Congress passed ADL’s Hate Crimes Statistics Act. It mixed
    synagogue with state, making ADL the hate laws teacher to the US Justice
    Department, FBI and every police precinct in America. Since then, ADL’s twisted
    definitions, hate law enforcement methods, and criteria for statistics reporting
    inform the thinking and reflexes of the US law enforcement system. (5)

    1998. ADL introduced its Hate Crimes Prevention Act to Congress,
    confident of easy passage. Republican leaders in the House and Senate instructed
    everyone to vote for it. Yet independent-thinking Republicans, dominating
    Conference between the House and Senate, examined the bill closely. Aghast at
    its sinister intentions, they stripped it out. Since then, ADL’s federal hate
    bill has been reintroduced and defeated by Republicans in every session of
    Congress. Today, with a Democrat-dominated government, ADL eagerly anticipates
    victory: an ADL-dominated hate crimes bureaucracy in America, ending free speech
    and persecuting Christians from a hate crimes command center in
    Washington.

    2004. Acting on authority of ADL’s Pennsylvania hate law, ADL national
    executive board member and Philadelphia DA Lynne Abraham arrested and imprisoned
    for 21 hours 11 Christians for the “hate crime” of peacefully witnessing to
    homosexuals. Penalty if convicted of the seven charges would be 47 years in
    prison and $90,000 fines each. After 3 months they were acquitted.

    2004. ADL introduced their No Place for Hate program, which boldly encourages
    American families to embrace homosexuality, same-sex marriage, etc. No Place for
    Hate literature is promoted in Barnes and Noble bookstores and at local chapters
    across the nation. One piece encourages families with young children to invite a
    homosexual couple for an evening of dinner, fun and fellowship. This, ADL says,
    will help destroy any “homophobic” attitudes developing in their young
    minds.

    2004. ADL Europe and B’nai B’rith International set up a 56-member hate law
    bureaucracy in Europe, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
    (OSCE). They also persuaded the European Union and Council of Europe to promote
    the ADL hate law agenda. As part of OSCE, ADL created the International Network
    Against Cyber-Hate (INACH) dedicated to ending online “hate speech” (really,
    free speech, such as criticism of homosexuality and Israel). (6)

    2006. ADL persuaded Congress to create its Global Office of Anti-Semitism in
    the US State Department. Every year this ADL front reports on an “epidemic” of
    anti-Semitism gleaned from ADL statistics gathered worldwide. In last year’s
    report to Congress, it accused Christians who believe the New Testament account
    that Jewish leaders had Christ crucified of being “classic anti-Semites”—as was
    Adolf Hitler. (7) In Canada, any public statement that Jewish leaders killed
    Christ is considered the hate crime of anti-Semitism, punishable by a minimum
    $5,000 fine and prison if repeated.

    2007. The ADL-inspired Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism
    Act was introduced into Congress. It would set up a federal commission to
    study and make legislative recommendations to Congress on how to end Christian,
    conservative, and far right “hate speech” that streams the internet, possibly
    inciting violent hate crimes. It was unanimously passed by the House.
    (8)

    2008. ADL, through Jewish lesbian activist and state Rep. Sheila Kuehl helped
    pass California’s SB777, banning criticism of homosexuality in public schools.
    If any child now criticizes sodomy, he will be expelled. If a teacher or
    administrator does, they are fired. (9) At the same time, ADL submitted an
    extensive amicus brief to the California Supreme Court in favor of same-sex
    marriage. (10) It undoubtedly influenced the Court’s pro-homosexual
    decision.

    2009. With another Jewish activist group, the Southern Poverty Law Center,
    ADL directed Missouri state police to consider white Christian conservatives,
    Ron Paul supporters, tax and immigration protestors, pro-lifers, etc., as
    possible domestic terrorists. (11) Soon after, Janet Nepolitano, who recently
    delivered an extensive and flattering speech to an ADL convention, issued a very
    similar directive from the Department of Homeland security, warning America of
    this threat from the Christian conservative right. (12)

    2009. ADL’s federal hate crimes bill passed the House of Representatives
    249-175. (13) The Senate version will probably be considered in the Senate
    Judiciary Tuesday, May 12 at 10am EDT. (14)

    ADL Hate Laws Target Christians

    Get the picture? Do you see the trajectory of ADL’s hate law agenda? It means
    persecution of Christians and other free thinkers. ADL is a cesspool of
    anti-Christian, anti-freedom social “civil rights” initiatives. For decades its
    pipeline of legislative sewage has flowed directly and interminably into
    Congress. If Americans defeat one ADL-inspired bill, ADL has lined up six more.
    But unlike most evangelical Christians, ADL will never, never give up—until it
    has created an “anti-hate” bureaucracy in America, like Canada’s, ending free
    speech. What is ADL’s ultimate objective? National director Abraham H.
    Foxman, author of Never Again? The Threat of the New Anti-Semitism, is
    a devout Orthodox Jew. In 1991, he angrily vacated his seat in the Orthodox
    synagogue of Teaneck, New Jersey, because he felt its members and leadership
    were not praying for Israel as passionately as they should! (15) Foxman says he
    earnestly looks forward to Israel’s Biblically prophesied “messiah.” Christians
    know this is not Jesus Christ but that prophesied “man of sin” (John 5:43) whom
    Jesus said Jews would someday accept in place of Himself. Contemporary Jewish
    activists, like Foxman, think “the messiah is the Jewish people”— i.e., when
    Jewish power finally ascends over Christians and Gentiles, Jewish power by
    itself will make “messiah” happen. Why does Foxman promote
    homosexuality, same-sex marriage, pornography (he gave pornographers Hugh and
    Christy Hefner special “free speech” awards)? (16) Why do ADL and other Jewish
    “civil liberties” groups, such as the ACLU (17), Southern Poverty Law Center,
    People for the American Way, etc., do all they can to tear down our crosses, Ten
    Commandments, manger scenes, Christian symbols (18) and passionately support the
    killing of 50 million babies through abortion? For that matter, why did the
    Jewish forefathers of these Jewish supremacists invent and facilitate Communism
    and socialism (liberalism)—dedicated to breaking down the capitalist free
    enterprise system? (19) Why does Jewish-dominated media (20) relentlessly
    corrupt our morals and those of our children, casting aspersions (as in
    the Da Vinci Code) on the deity and legitimacy of Christ? (21)
    Simple. The Jewish supremacists of ADL/B’nai B’rith know that
    if Christian nations remain strong, virtuous and industrious, they will never
    realize their messiah in sovereignty over the nations, ruling the world from
    Jerusalem. (22) Even if Christian or conservative leaders know of such
    demonic aspirations, they will never say it. ADL has them convinced they will be
    ruined if they do—smeared as “anti-Semites” and abandoned by Israel-first
    followers who have been conditioned to loathe any hint of criticism of “God’s
    chosen people.” If America is to survive, this must change. ADL has
    brought us the very brink of slavery—intending to herd America into a one-world,
    international police state. A great abyss of darkness lies just before
    us. But it’s we who should push ADL back into this abyss of its own
    making. Everyone, leaders and followers, should speak out against
    ADL now! When we collectively identify ADL as the greatest threat to
    freedom in our history, it will be ADL, not us, who will be ruined.

  • anonymous_amren

    But here we understand that evolution favors stupidity, laziness, and the most base biological urges most of the time, since evolution only rewards how many surviving grandchildren you have. There are a lot more third-worlders than first-worlders.

    • http://www.newnation.org/ sbuffalonative

      There may be two evolutionary paths.

      Those of the third world never evolved beyond the fundamental need to reproduce. Those of the first world have enough intellect to see a larger horizon and are future oriented and don’t need to breed prolifically (to our own detriment).

    • Pandemonium

      The story isn’t over.

    • Strider73

      Third-worlders breed more than we do because their historic situation requires it. Sea turtles lay hundreds of eggs a year because only 1-2% survive to adulthood. If left to their own devices — that is, without first-world do-gooders interfering and without importing them to our countries — third-world populations would remain stable (or perhaps drop) even with their high birthrates, because most of the children would die young.

  • JohnEngelman

    In order to
    be a political activist one probably should believe that the majority already
    agrees with one but lacks leadership and focus, or that the majority would
    agree if they listened to one’s arguments.

                                               

    I used to
    think that way. Then I discovered that even when people have comparable
    economic interests they often have different values and concerns. These are not
    really debatable. People like different things.

                                                       

    Moreover,
    most people allow their likes and dislikes to influence their judgment of what
    is true and false. Those on the left do not want to believe that there are
    important relationships between genes, IQ, success in life, race, and crime.
    Those on the right do not want to believe that the consumption of fossil fuels
    contributes to global warming. Those on the left do not want to believe that
    more, and longer prison sentences reduce the crime rate. Those on the right do
    not want to believe that raising taxes increases tax revenue.

     

    • ed91

       you need to find a hobby that doesn’t interfere with other people and how they want to be left alone from people like you

      • JohnEngelman

        Disturbing prejudices with facts and reason is my hobby. 

    • Pandemonium

       “Those on the right do not want to believe that the consumption of fossil fuels contributes to global warming.”
      I thought you have said that you deal in “facts and reason”. 

      I know many people on the “left” who totally poo-poo the idea of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change. And there is zero proof that so-called “fossil fuels” actually exist. 

      You seem to be just another ideologue.  

      • JohnEngelman

        When dealing with a complex subject I assume that the scientific consensus is more likely to be right than wrong. The scientific consensus of climatologists is that man made global warming is happening, and that it is a serious problem.
                                                
        In addition, during my life time I have noticed milder winters and hotter summers. 
                                   
        Finally, man made global warming is plausible. When dinosaurs lived the climate on earth was much warmer. As carbon was removed from the atmosphere by plants, and deposited in fossil fuels, the carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere declined. This resulted in a cooler climate. 
                                               
        As we consume fossil fuels we reverse the process, leading to a warmer climate. 

        • Pandemonium

          I repeat myself. There is NO scientific consensus that man-made global warming is occurring. 

          So called “fossil fuels” is only “consensus” in some countries in the West. Most of the rest of the world “laugh” at the idea that petroleum comes from dead dinosaurs.

          Explain previous eras of “global warming” well before man was burning anything but dried cow pies and dead trees.

          • Pandemonium

            “The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic.”
            The above by one Dr. Evans, an eminent scientist while responding to a question about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).

            AGW is anything but settled science.

          • anonymous_amren

            Dr. Evans is neither eminent, nor a scientist, nor honest.

            If you understood how poor the quality of your arguments were, you would have more respect for the people who disagree with you. 

          • JohnEngelman

            Your insistence on repeating what the vast majority of credible scientists deny illustrates the truth of Jared Taylor’s essay. 

          • Anonymous_White_Male

             I’ll try not to point out that what you are claiming as “the vast majority of credible scientists” is actually “the vast majority of media disinformation”.  Oops, sorry, couldn’t do it. Maybe you could explain to all the yahoos on this site how the climate of Mars is also showing “Global Warming”. I wasn’t aware that the people of Mars had developed an industrial capacity. Wouldn’t it be funny if all zealots that have been indoctrinated to believe that humans are so powerful and destructive that we can actually effect a planet that can destroy most of us with a slight shrug of its planetary axis found out that what is causing global warming on ALL the planets in this solar system is due to SOLAR activity and has nothing to do with what ants like us do.

            http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2005/11/01/mars-warming-nasa-scientists-report

            http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

            http://www.wnho.net/global_warming.htm

            I’m sure that “all right thinking people believe” self-righteousness goes over big with self-righteous college girls. Unfortunately for you, it doesn’t work on people that have the capacity to think for themselves. You really stepped in it when you claimed “the vast majority of credible scientists”. If you had stuck to “the vast majority of climatologists” or “climate scientists” you wouldn’t have made quite as large a gaffe. But, when these same “climate scientists” get grant funding by quoting the scientific community’s equivalent of “politically correct thought” and have been caught cooking the books, thinking people have to ask themselves “Why would the truth have to cook the books?”

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246661/New-scandal-Climate-Gate-scientists-accused-hiding-data-global-warming-sceptics.htm

            The true goal of science and philosophy should be the pursuit of the truth. When it becomes a means of padding your income by telling others what they want to hear it is no longer science but prostitution. All racial realists hear the same lies about the genetic nature of race from “the vast majority of social scientists. WE KNOW they are lying. So, we realize that what is promoted is not what is truth and anybody that uses ad hominems to avoid answering difficult questions that don’t support  the dogmas of academia and politics is not to be trusted.

          • JohnEngelman

            Anonymous_White_Male,
                              
            Your link to the National Geographic Society concerned the opinion of one scientist.
                           
            The link to The Daily Mail did not lead to anything.
                           
            The other two links were to ideological websites without scientific credentials. 
                                  
            The following link, also from the National Geographic says, “The report, based on the work of some 2,500 scientists in more than 130 countries, concluded that humans have caused all or most of the current planetary warming. ”
            http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming_2.html              
                   
            Anyone can find confirmation of what they want to believe on the internet. It is important to be able to distinguish between credible sources, and those which do not deserve to be trusted.

          • Anonymous_White_Male

             Sorry, Johnny. Your not intellectually honest enough “to be able to distinguish between credible sources, and those which do not deserve to be trusted”. You are a walking true believer, completely unconcerned with the truth.  But I see why Pandemonium stopped arguing with you. People like you aren’t worth the wasted time.  And you will never shut up.

          • anonymous_amren

             Anonymous_white_male, you need to try harder.

            I will explain to you yahoos how Mars is showing “Global Warming”… it’s not. A temporary dust storm one year was mistaken for a pattern of change in brightness that was assumed to be a warming trend by one over-eager scientist. Other readings show there is no such pattern. Venus is showing “Global Warming” naturally though due to greenhouse gasses, but nobody is suggesting the increased presense of those gasses on Earth is natural. Humans are not ants. Especially not white people. We have an incredible amount of power and out atmosphere is incredibly thin.

            JohnEngelman clearly has the capacity to think for himself, or he wouldn’t be here. He didn’t just follow his ideology here. The same can’t be said (or at least not as much) for people like you.

            ALL scientists get grant funding by saying things that fit the general consensus. For example scientists who say cancer is caused by genetic mutations get more grant funding than scientists who say cancer is caused by Martians. And ALL kinds of scientists “cook the books” to the same extent that climate scientists do (except the soft social sciences which do it a hundred times as much).

            Ad hominim is very similar to racial prejudice. It does have it’s legitimate place.

      • anonymous_amren

        That is fact and reason.

        Your belief that you are driven by fact and reason while other people are driven by their metaphorical elephants, is incorrect. You have the same emotional drivers as everyone else, you just don’t want to see them.

        “And there is zero proof that so-called “fossil fuels” actually exist.”

        Um… perhaps you want to rethink that sentence?

        You don’t understand what an ideologue is. It doesn’t mean someone who disagrees with you.

      • JohnEngelman

        Sep 11, 2012           
        (Reuters) – The first eight months of 2012 have been the warmest of any year on record in the contiguous United States, and this has been the third-hottest summer since record-keeping began in 1895, the U.S. National Climate Data Center said on Monday…
                        
        Outside the Lower 48, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center has already reported that Arctic sea ice has shrunk to a record small size, and the melting season is not over yet. The Arctic is sometimes characterized as the world’s air conditioner.                                       

        As of September 5, the ice on the Arctic Ocean was less than 1.54 million square miles (4 million square km), a 45 percent reduction compared to September conditions in the 1980s and 1990s.
        http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/09/10/us-usa-heat-idINBRE88914W20120910

    • NM156
  • JohnEngelman

    I do not detect much understanding of liberals by conservatives at all. Conservatives often think liberals want to get bigger welfare checks. Welfare recipients seldom bother to vote, much less read liberal newspapers like The New York Times and The Washington Post. 
     
    Conservatives often think liberals are driven by a desire for power. In the United States. “Conservatives continue to make up the largest segment of political views in the country, outnumbering liberals nearly two-to-one.” 
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71385.html 

        Consequently, there is more political power on the right.

    • Flytrap

      Of course you “do not detect much understanding of liberals by conservatives at all.”  And if you watch Haidt’s videos and read his books you still won’t even though he lays out how and why.  

  • kminta

    Sounds like an interesting dinner topic on philosophy.

    Though I haven’t (yet) read Professor Haidt’s book, I get the impression that Haidt is saying is that human morality is totally bogus because it lacks any true objectivity and impartiality. Be you conservative or liberal, an upstanding citizen or the lowest denominator of our society, morality is whatever you want it to be. And to an extent, he’s absolutely right. 

    The way I see it, human morality is adaptable and is not, nor has it ever been, absolute. When conditions change, so does one’s moral sense of good and evil. What was “good” and “moral” yesterday will be seen as “amoral” and “evil” tomorrow and vice versa. Take our present-day culture,  for instance. Many commonplace phenomenon we observe today would be considered abhorrent a generation ago. 

    And I think that’s what this all boils down to — a morality gap between generations. Many older Americans still cling to the morality of when they were growing up, and the American youth of today adhere to whatever they see on MTV. The heart of the conflict here is that the past and present generations is trying to convince the other that their morality is best; for that is what will shape the morality of the future.

    Since we humans are flawed creatures (or what we’ve deemed as human flaws), our morality is flawed as well. But being a creature with flawed morality is far better than being a creature with no morality. Then you’re no better than an animal.

  • http://www.facebook.com/willard.gage.3 Willard Gage

    Jarred is correct. Twenty years ago I read his book “Paved With Good Intentions, The Failure of race Relations in  Contemporary America”. Up to that point I was a “fiscal conservative” but a social liberal. After I read that book I started to see things very differently. It was the complete absence of malice in his approach that enabled him to bypass my programmed kneejerk reactions that would have had me instantly throw the book down and discount it all a “racist hatred”. He is also correct in that it is very hard to not be “mean spirited” when dealing with liberals, but if one can avoid it, one has a shot of winning them over.

  • http://jewamongyou.wordpress.com/ Reuben H

    On the title of the book, I would add that we should reserve the right to define “good people” to include only those who make a genuine effort to be good. Those on the left, who make no effort to scrutinize their own attitudes, are not “good” in my eyes. A good person, in my opinion, is an open-minded person. Otherwise, he is only a bigot.

    http://www.jewamongyou.wordpress.com

  • http://www.facebook.com/willard.gage.3 Willard Gage

    I think Mr. Haidth has accidentally stumbled onto another fault of the modern society which places the individual as the pinnacle and considers the group not only irrelevant, but evil. This has lead to the cult of ACCOMPLISHMENT. Once stripped of being part of a group, and the meaning that that gives one’s life, people face the hellish existential existence that is modern america. Everyone feels they have to go to college and become something “great”. Adds such as the ones where the little girls are proclaiming they”can be whatever I want to be” give proof to this.The implied message is that purpose of life is to achieve and achieve and achieve, especially when it means overcoming the limitations that nature has placed on one.It is a feeling that one must be endlessly driven, always perfect.It leads to overconsumption of stimulants in this quest and a complete disinterest in any meaningful time with others, especially family, and who has time for children when one has to achieve self glorification, when one has to have the ‘best life that any human born ever lived. The utmost horror that people who live by this code is that they may be , gasp, a MEDIOCRITY! The problem with all of this that achievement for achievements sake has no meaning.
       Such a concept  of achievement is irrelevant to an Amish girl. She knows what her role is and she knows it is valued and important.The same is true for the Amish male,his role is to be a farmer and a father.There is no giant ego, desperately tying to make it to the top of some small sphere of human endeavor and thereafter desperately trying to stay on top. They are not trying desperately to be superior to their fellow Amish, they are trying to fill their roles so the whole machinery of the society goes along smoothly. They recognize the danger of ego glorification through a fetish for achievement and they have a word for it “HOCHNUNG”- or foolish pridefulness. 
       Contrast the Amish people with those of our society who are the very definition of achievers- CELEBRITIES. We all recognize that celebrities are disgusting people who will do anything, sink to any level, to achieve and maintain their positions. Modesty does not exist amongst the crowd we know of celebrities. Most of them are drug users, achieving a high goes along perfectly with their ethos. They pride themselves on living better lives and they achieve this through stimulants and drugs. It is also no accident that most of those celebrities are openly hostile to the identity of the group that they belong to as well as hostile to this country. Those who consider themselves as individuals without any group identity always seem to target the group that they do belong to, in order to maintain the fiction that they exist and have always existed, independent of any other human beings. They want to perpetuate the fiction that they are gods that created themselves.

    • Pandemonium

      Given that we came out of a tribal background, modern life as you describe it, strips that feeling of kinship and belonging from us that tribal life once gave us.

      • http://www.facebook.com/willard.gage.3 Willard Gage

        and we try to fill it with things, attention, etc.

    • JustaWhiteMom

      The interesting thing is that individual achievement means nothing outside the context of the group.  Who will read Shakespeare when we are all dead?  Non-whites will just call him a Dead White European Male if they remember him at all.  Individualism a deadly lie.

  • http://www.dailykenn.com/ Daily Kenn

    The brain’s right hemisphere is the center for emotion. The left is the center for logic.

    We all use both hemisphere’s when making decisions. When purchasing a car, for example, the brain’s left hemisphere weighs practical matters such as cost, mileage, reliability and re-sell value. The brain’s right hemisphere considers the cars style, social credentials, and how we’ll look in the driver’s seat.

    The brain’s right hemisphere is so powerful in decision making that advertisers spend billions of dollars appealing directly to our emotional center. Try to imagine a TV commercial that contains only product images without audio and visual enhancements. There would be no GEIKO gecko, no Aflac duck, and no Flo making Progressive Insurance commercials.

    Liberal Democrats scuttle logic by feeding the brain’s right hemisphere with warm-and-fuzzy images while confusing the left hemisphere with bogus ‘facts,’ such as accusing Republicans of being racists and ideologues.

  • curri


    Thanks to Old Adolf,”

    National Socialism was a reaction to  Communism.  The radical egalitarian, anti-eugenicist, philo-Semitic Soviet regime murdered many millions before Adolf harmed anyone.  See “Red Terror,”  Holodomor and the Great Purge  for some of the major “high points” of Communist rule  before Hitler came to power. 

    Funny how radical egalitarians kill 100 million and their worldview flourishes thereafter. 

    • Anonymous

      Very true.

      It is quite amusing that moral righteous, in their quest for self validation, love to play  “your political side has the worst dictator and through affiliation we will attempt to guilt you in a war of verbal rhetoric” game seem to forget about Stalin and Mao.

      (although some of them deny that they are left wing by stating that Stalin was a “state capitalist” or deny that the Gulag ever happened all the while hating those who deny the Holocaust)

      The reason why because several reason 1) We never went to war with Stalin. Close but not actual war 2) Young people became suspect-able be to the propaganda of progress. Ideological subversion that pitted a cultural war occurred. 3) Unlike Germany that we conquered and found out what was going on, the Soviet Union was able to successfully diminish and prevent information about its concentration camps from known all the way up too 1991. 4) I don’t be “The Jews” were involved. However, I do believe Jewish interest groups with interest in making sure that the Holocaust never happened again did so and no other awareness happened about other atrocities.

      P.S. Holocaust did happen by the way.

  • JohnEngelman

    If one feels something strongly it is easy to overestimate the number of people who feel the same way, and it easy to underestimate the difficulty of converting others to one’s persuasion.
                                
    When I came to realize that I stopped being a political activist. 
                                               
    It is virtually impossible to change another person’s political opinions. Facts and logic that confront what another person wants to believe to do not achieve conversion; they arouse anger. A person’s political opinions only change when his circumstances in life change.   

  • Athling

    Prof. Haidt proposes a “social-intuitionist” theory of morality in which moral evaluations come from human emotions in a heuristic perception process rather than through reasoning.

    The social component of his theory postulates that conscious reasoning about moral issues comes only after perceptions about them, and that its role is solely to influence the perceptions of others. He takes moral perceptions to be the sudden appearance in consciousness of a moral judgment without any conscious awareness of having gone through the steps of searching, weighing evidence, or inferring a conclusion. (Haidt, J., 2001, Psychological Review, 108, 814–834.)

    For Prof. Haidt, emotions directly cause moral judgments. His theory is framed in opposition to Rationalism.

    Immanuel Kant, on the other hand (and with whom I agree), argued that a person’s autonomy and self-governing rationality, not emotion, was at the heart of morality. What makes individuals moral is precisely that the moral law guides their decisions. We can know what is moral or immoral through reason not merely the fickleness of human emotion.

  • Athling

    Good grief! The more of Prof. Haidt’s writings I read the more convinced I am of his flawed logic. Morality, what it is and how it works is of extreme importance to our cause. People must be convinced that our position is moral if they are to side with us.

    It is also rather frustrating that so many younger people today cannot answer the simplest questions about morality.

    For example, is murder morally wrong? Not justifiable killing as in war but unjustifiable murder.Why is it wrong? Is murder ever morally acceptable? Would the prohibition of murder on moral grounds be a moral absolute applicable to any and all societies? Do we need emotions to inform us about whether murder is morally acceptable and then use those emotions to try to convince others of the correctness of our position or can we use logic, cause-and-effect reasoning to show that our position is moral.?

  • JohnEngelman

    I survived the five years of black ghetto riots from 1964 to 1968 with my benign opinions of the Negro race intact. It was only when blacks began to commit violent crimes against me that my opinion of them became less sympathetic.